We'll see what its performance is once the card is actually unveiled and tested. The "compare cards based on what performance we'd like them to have" game is always a waste of time.
This card will have to have at least the same performance of a GTX 970 for VR, which is what they spoke about a lot.
I'm sure we will see ITX versions too. Looks like a 960/low rent 970 cooler to me however it's much more refined and less cheap looking.
One question why destroy your fury brand by releasing so cheap if it can reach fury performance once overclocked AMD just killed there own cards
HBM is out of production so its `old` stock - I emailed Hynix about using 8GB of HBM1 and they replied with :
Fury was a failure. It's what they got when tossing in the kitchen sink. It did have some good things like being half decent at 4k but that was all washed away by the fact it only had 4gb vram available to it. No matter which way you tossed the salad it was £520 for a Fury X with severely limiting vram. So all of the things it was supposed to be good at were lost in transition when looking at recent console "ports". I'd also hazard a guess and say it was eye wateringly expensive to make design and produce. All of that means less profit, and hardly any one actually bought them. I was silly enough to buy two and they were pretty much useless because of the way things are. Nvidia have shown since Fermi that less can easily translate into more. Less development cost, less die size, more profit. It seems like AMD hit a brick wall with Fury but are now learning from those mistakes. They are now doing what Nvidia do only they are doing it for far less money. That just shows you the mark up on something like a 1080. So sure, AMD won't have that markup. But people spending £200 or less on a GPU are usually fickle (as they should be) and don't care about anything but bang for their buck. Something that AMD are promising in droves. It's the turn and burn technique. Make more at lower prices sell for lower prices yet sell more = the same sort of thing in the long game. That's what my old boss used to call it when we reduced the price of DVDs in the store. We worked harder, were far more productive and whilst we weren't making the same profits on DVDs that we were before we were selling three times as many, meaning the overall profit was actually higher than selling fewer products at higher prices. I don't exactly know how AMD have got Polaris stacked and what their release plan is for the technology as a whole (whether there is a faster Polaris card coming and what not) but I know that Nvidia are going to be absolutely loathe to market a card costing $199 that performs really well because it will then make a mockery of their higher priced cards. Just like the 560ti. Overclock one it performs on par with a stock 570 yet costs £80 less or more. The 580 was just lols prices. Since then the GTX 660 was lame, the 760 was lame (no better than the 670 and only a little bit cheaper) and the 960 was super lame. Nvidia really hate turn and burn.
4GB isn't that limiting @ 4k , it depends on the title ; my own GTX 980 has 4GB and its not ram limited in the games I play (core limited but not ram) GTX 760 is Kepler GK104 with a unit removed (1152 vs 1344) so was doomed from the start - the 770 was simply a renamed and overclocked 680!
Bring it on let's hope zen can bring something to the table as well with Nvidia and Intel dropping their prices. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Depends where this card settles in at faster than Nvidia in ashes it surely will be. Faster than Nvidia in a range of games is the question. Personally think current owners of a r390 or above are basically not gonna upgrade. So your looking at last Gen hang outs on older hardware who do not want to go second hand for buyers. It's a question that was put across on another forum with the answer been await benches. Wonder where the Nvidia 970 980 second hand market settles same with fury. Could be some huge bargains second hand. 4gb r480 this will be I'd think for $199 I'd imagine the 8gb model will be a decent chunk more expensive.
When you take a top priced card and crank the settings at 4k (where the Fury X actually nearly made sense) you expect it to perform as such dude. And it just doesn't. I had VRAM limitations in three titles all released one after the other so the writing was on the wall. I don't know what sort of ramifications the Fury X will have on Vega but I just hope for their sake it's tip top in every aspect or it could bomb like the Fury range has. Still, ever onward and upward eh? and this definitely looks like a giant step in the right direction At least I know if my Titan X takes a crap out of warranty and I need a 1440p card I can get one (the 8gb) without selling a kidney If it can perform as rumoured (OC 980 or Fury) then I can see 390 owners making the jump for the power savings and heat reduction. Having said that though they're not really targeting their own cards because it will make a mockery of pretty much all of their own cards so I can see a huge chunk of the old going for good now. Not sure if they will phase out the 390 and 390x yet I guess that depends on real world performance but going from what I have seen we will finally see the end of the mass of rebrands they have been selling for years. So no more 7970, 7950 and possibly no more 390. I've seen two 480s benched in Ashes and they were quite a chunk faster than the 1080 for £200 less. If you watch the AMD presentation you will see them playing Doom and talking about Async and Vulkan with ID software.
I don't kn ow tbh - GDDR5 prices are stable but quite likely $249 for 8GB - maybe , just maybe - $199 for 8GB and $169 for 4GB from partner cards?
